----- Original Message -----
From: "Stephen Scharf" <scharfsj@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>problem is the 10D color does not look as good as the E-1 even with the
> >>excellent C1 RAW convertor.
>
> I don't agree with CH on this-he's entitled to his viewpoint as I am
> mine, and granted the perception of color is to some (possibly large)
> degree subjective, but I love the color of C*n*n's CMOS sensor based
> cameras;I prefer it to CCD based cameras including the E-1's which is
> still quite nice, butIMHO, doesn't hold a candle to the CMOS sensors.
It is not only my personal experience, some pro and non pro friend of mine
don't like the CMOS sensor. No doubt that most of the C*non fans I know like
it very much.
> CH has not posted what his post-capture color post-processing
> workflow is, but I have spent the last year getting quite good
> control with respect to post, and I am very happy with the quality of
> color I am getting, both on the monitor, and most importantly, from
> the 2200 (Velvet Fine Art-Yeah!). All capture devices have their
> imperfections, and it's up to the photographer to discern those as
> part of his production values, and develop a workflow to produce
> images whose colors pop, retains shadow and highlight details, and
> has dead-nuts neutrals.
> <SNIP>
To me, for 10D it was always RAW+PhaseOne, no other option, the JPEG is too
bad. For E-1 so far all all shots on my web are JPEG and NO color
adjustment, only contrast by level and curve.
You may see the CMOS color is good, it all depends on your objects, for car
racing it will be fine. But for people and macro I like E-1 much more.
>
> >So the E-1 has worse noise and yet the pictures look better, likely
> >due to better color fidelity.
>
> I don't agree that the pictures look better-I find the noise levels
> of the E-1 to contribute a significant detriment to the image quailty
> at ISOs as low as 400. I find the metering of the E-1 to be quite
> neutral, but the images' color tend to be a little cool and flat
> for my taste. Color neutrality is good, though, and one of the
> biggest pluses I've found is that the E-1 metering produces nicely
> balanced histograms.
>
They are all shot with JPEG, normal color saturation, no color adjust in PS
only contrast, do they look flat?
http://www.accura.com.hk/OM/E1.htm
>
> CCD chips are generally noisier than CMOS....>
That is also what I believe.
<snip>
> also suffers notably from balky autofocus, slow write times, some
> poor design and ergonomic features, and unacceptable levels of
> noise. I think it's a quite a good first attempt, but it's not a
> knockout, and I find some things wanting about it.
Poor ergonomic? how? Noise is high but better than ISO100 slides that I used
to, it is ok for me. Write time is slow but 100% faster than 10D! What do
you need? My 10D wirte a RAW at 5-6S with Ultra II Scandisk, the E-1 less
than 3S. I agree the auto focus of E-1 is not that good but fast auto focus
is not my major concern.
> I hear the E-1
> replacement will be quite nice, though, and address many of the
> shortcomings of the E-1...it is supposed to come out this fall. I
> always enjoy using it and taking photos with it, but I think of it as
> a camera that's almost there, but not quite....in that respect its a
> bit disappointing.
>
I agree E-1 still has lots to improve but for me people and nature shooter,
I like the image of E-1 much more.
C.H.Ling
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|